The other paradigm I wish to consider
addresses itself to the Sephirotic realm.
This paradigm was typical of those
Kabbalists who assumed that the crucial
issue was to induce or re-induce the harmony
in the Divine spheres which had been
disturbed by primordial human transgression.
There were two metaphors for the Divine:
that of the Tree, and (to simplify) the
anthropomorphic one of the couple. In the
latter, the first nine Sefiroth were taken
as male, and the last as female.
The basic
sin of Akher was to break the connection
between the first nine and the tenth (seen
as the shoots, or as a female figure). The
challenge created by this transgression is
to see the Pardes as a Garden.
In Paradise, the transgression was the
separation of the fruit from the tree,
projected on high. The transgression was
not eating, but separating one aspect of the
Divine from the rest. By separating the
fruit from the Tree, Akher (or Adam)
separated aspects of the Divine from each
other, thus inducing a disturbance in the
Divine realm often referred to as "the
devastation of the plantations." Even more
dangerously, by affecting the Divine world
in this way you are prone to accept the
assumption that there are two different
powers, to believe no longer in a Unity on
high, but a Duality. In the moment of
separation, in other words, the possibility
of a dualistic misunderstanding arises. The
challenge, then, is to heal this rupture,
which took place in the primordial era.
The work of restoring the lost unity is
open to Jews in general, but especially to
the Kabbalists, by the use of Jewish ritual,
which is seen as a Theurgical technique,
i.e., one able to influence God (which is
one way of understanding the word
"theurgy"). According to the Theosophical-
Theurgical Kabbalah, the major role of the
Kabbalist is to restore the organic unity
between the Divine powers.
It is, in a sense, the transposition of
the mystical project into another key, the
attempt to repair the rupture in the Divine
(rather than between the human and the
Divine) induced by human transgression.
R. Aqiva, then, was seen as one who was
able to act ritualistically to restore the
relationship between the two last Sefiroth
[the ninth and the tenth].
This projected a
certain type of sacramental value onto
Jewish ritual which was absent in other
forms of Kabbalah or in Maimonides. In
other traditions, the individual was the
center. But in these demonic or Sephirotic
pursuits, the focus is on repairing the
cosmos, on inducing a more harmonious state
in general, in the nation, and in the
cosmos.
The last issue I wish to consider involves
making a comparative observation about the
distribution of the discussions of the
Pardes story. It is found of course in
ancient literature, but in the medieval
period, surprisingly (and this surprised me
when I first looked into this question),
only the Sephardi were interested in it. It
does not appear in medieval Ashkenazi texts.
The Sephardic literature is less interested
in the Talmud and the Hekhaloth, and more
interested in the Pardes. It was in the
Sephardi literature that the interpretations
we have discussed were invented.
Now, Sephardi culture was in much more open
contact with alien cultures, and thus more
endangered. Muslim (and even Christian
philosophic/scholastic) culture were
perceived as a danger, and openness to it
was experienced as a danger - a dangerous
ideal.
Ashkenazi society of the period was closed;
there was not much scholarly interchange
with other cultures. Ashkenazi culture was
very confident, and it was not open
precisely because it was confident that
Jewish culture was the highest form of
religion. Thus for it there was no
dangerous ideal. The story of "Entering
Pardes," then, did not meet any cultural
need, because there was no sense of cultural
danger. Even later, in the Sixteenth
Century, when the Pardes story is discussed,
the discussion is inspired by Sephardi
literature, and this is true even up to the
mid-Eighteenth Century. But by the
Nineteenth Century, a deep change has
occurred: all interest in the Pardes theme
is found among the Ashkenazim. This, I
think, is connected with the entry into
interaction with general culture, with the
Enlightenment. There came to be a need to
explain the meaning of this interaction.
Elisha ben Abuya, in fact, could be seen as
one of the major protagonists in much modern
Hebrew literature.
It was, then, cultural exposure and
openness which invoked, provoked, and evoked
(all three!) the interest in the Pardes
theme. The Pardes story explained the
encounter between the Jewish and other
mentalities. In fact, this may also be the
explanation for the Talmudic treatment of
Elisha Akher, especially if he is taken as a
Gnostic, as modern scholars
often do. Even
the early forms of his story, then, would
typify the encounter of Jews with a general
culture - in this case, a Gnostic culture.
Akher would be someone open to a non-Jewish
type of culture - though in fact it is hard
to be sure which of many it might have been.
There area as many different scholarly
Elishas as there were contemporary cultures.
Akher typifies a situation in which there is
a willingness to be open, but a danger of
being unable to return to one's patrimony.
There is a danger that one will be seduced
by, and remain immersed in, philosophy,
Gnosticism, Neoplatonism
... or whatnot.
His plight is used to describe an
existential situation in which Jews found
themselves between Judaism and a general
culture that fascinated and endangered them.
Q: One interpretation of the Pardes theme
is of an entry into the demonic sphere.
How was this combat carried out?
A: By the commandments - mitzvoth. The
idea was to explore, and attempt to
subdue, by performing the Commandments in
a Kabbalistic manner, thus extricating some
part of the demonic world. In the
Sephirotic realm, by means of the
positive
commandments, one worked to unify the
Divine world; by observing the
prohibitions, one could subdue (but not
eradicate) the demonic world. The
Kabbalists were quite uneasy with the idea
of destroying an aspect of reality, even a
demonic one. As a part of reality it was
needed, and had to be not destroyed but
managed or coped with.
Q: How is the Pardes story understood and
used by Kabbalists now?
A: I don't know. I haven't yet discussed
this with them. After I make up my mind
on the basis of the texts, then I will go
to them and see what they think.
Q: What about Ben Zoma: how was he seen?
A: As someone who had progressed to a
certain level, but who was not able to
enter metaphysics, so to speak. He forced
himself into the Physics, but he became
mentally disturbed. The ecstatic
Kabbalists took him as one who had
entered the strong experience and become
crazy. Others assumed that he had been
damaged by the demonic world. But he did
not receive much treatment as an ideal
type, unlike Akher or Ben Azai, or Elisha
the prototype of imperfection. Ben Zoma
was not a strong type, he was not so
interesting, so he was not taken as a
type. And I have not found him
interesting enough to discuss much
myself...
Q: What if you are in a group having
religious experiences, can you then go out
into the world to change the world?
A: Look: most Kabbalists functioned at a
social level. Some were leaders, andwere
very important members of their
communities, so often they naturally were
social figures. But even ecstatic
Kabbalists who were sometimes very
individualistic became messianic in their
external activities. Most known
Kabbalists contributed the perfection of
the Divine, or of individual perfection,
in service of messianic aims. The same by
the way is often true of non-Jewish
mysticism, which could also be a way to
energize the personality to return to the
group in an activist manner.
Contents
page
